| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Politix |
| Is Obama Incomptetent? |
| 2009-03-15 |
| My political theory is that Bush got the incomptetent tag because he was incompetent, just as Obama gets the tag. The problem is that the federal governmnt is so large and growing that the most competent people on the planet will have their competence tested under such a large, ponderous system. In other words, the federal government is far, far too large in terms of employment, power and sheer size to run effectively. As I wrote, Bush was incompetent, just as so as Obama, only Obama is much, much worse. Not long ago, after a string of especially bad days for the Obama administration, a veteran Democratic pol approached me with a pained look on his face and asked, "Do you think they know what they're doing?" The question caught me off guard because the man is a well-known Obama supporter. As we talked, I quickly realized his asking suggested his own considerable doubts. Yes, it's early, but an eerily familiar feeling is spreading across party lines and seeping into the national conversation. It's a nagging doubt about the competency of the White House. |
| Posted by:badanov |
| #11 King Rehobama.... Is Obama incompetent? I thought that was a rhetorical question if we're referencing him as a leader. Methinx the guy couldn't lead a fire team in silent prayer and has less legit tangible leadership experience then a corporal. He has never owned or ran a business or even started one. He ran a good campaign & was fortunate enough to have an econ crisis & one of the worst GOP nominees in modern history - that was it. He's a decent speaker (w/teleprompter in hand), is somewhat handsome and seems like a nice guy. He was a shoe in when you looked at the idiocy and intellect of our american idol/idiot generation. I am not surprised one bit at how bad he will f* things up. What did he have, like 4 nominees in row that didn't pay their taxes and no one vetted it? Incompetence personified. This is not 2009 - this is more like 1979. |
| Posted by: Broadhead6 2009-03-15 22:46 |
| #10 The Peter Principle in action. That's why for very very important positions you want the individual to have successfully gone through some really tough and challenging experiences. |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2009-03-15 20:03 |
| #9 Is Barry incompetent? Does a bear shit in the woods? |
| Posted by: Almostout 2009-03-15 16:15 |
| #8 #6 I agree with DMFD his model being Rhodesia That is precisely where he is headed! |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2009-03-15 12:23 |
| #7 > Many eggs will have to be broken to make the giant, communal welfare omelette. Pity they should have been making a chicken! |
| Posted by: Bright Pebbles the flatulent 2009-03-15 12:15 |
| #6 I agree with DMFD his model being Rhodesia |
| Posted by: 3dc 2009-03-15 12:10 |
| #5 Is Barry incompetent? Is a Pigs ass pork? |
| Posted by: Trader_DFW 2009-03-15 12:04 |
| #4 No, he's trying to wreck the US economy in the name of equality and social justice. In the bright new future we will all be equally poverty stricken, miserable, and totally dependent on government 'generosity'. |
| Posted by: DMFD 2009-03-15 11:44 |
| #3 "Do you think they know what they're doing?" Yes, of course "they" do. Barry is a very competent socialist. Many eggs will have to be broken to make the giant, communal welfare omelette. Do "they" care how, many whom the eggs may belong to? Certainly NOT! Are "they" concerned at all that the country and possibly the entire world is in the throws of an economic callapse or global depression? Certainly NOT! The state of the economy is entirely incidental to the primary goals and redistribution intent of the administration. A single political party system or machine, and total government dependency of the population is the desired outcome. |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2009-03-15 11:32 |
| #2 There is only one answer. Cut off funding. Of course that doesn't happen as simply as that. It does if you have the line item veto. The power of the executive, judiciary, and legislature were well balanced until the introduction of the fourth, unaccountable, unchecked branch of government, the bureaucracy under civil service protection. A means to bring it under control must be found. |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2009-03-15 11:23 |
| #1 Your comment on the size and inefficiency of the bureaucracy is accurate. Given that it is not run on business principles and therefore has the additional overlay of rules, regulations, policies and is run from a myriads of perspectives and influences sews the seeds for its inevitable ossification and eventual irrelevance. Such organizations ultimately devolve to a point where they exist for their own purposes and survival. At least in private enterprise companies are run, theoretically for the benefit of the owners, employees and directors. So long as those interests are moderately aligned and the raison d'etre for the company's existence i.e. satisfying a market persists it will continue. But once a company fails to even moderately maintain that link it either has to get an artificial support [e.g GM, Chrysler are good examples]. At that point it becomes part of the bureaucratic infrastructure of the society unless it is cut loose [e.g some of the railways]. There is only one answer. Cut off funding. Of course that doesn't happen as simply as that. But once tax revenues can't cover it [which they haven't for years] and the bank funding the debt [the bond market] gets leery it demands a compensation for the higher risk [higher interest rates]. The only other alternative is to print money [higher inflation and in Zimbabwe's case hyperinflation]. The US$ is currently viewed as a safe haven, hence the artificially lower rates because of the demand for treasuries. But that will end at some time. So back to your comment. If government gets so large [as in my view it currently is] as to be impossible to control competently and the money runs out, what will it take for such a broad sweeping change in the political class to get in and take the scythe to the structures? Will the change come from individual state governments which just refuse to participate to the extent that they can and set an example? Will populations just move from one state to another sufficiently to force change [Californians going to Texas? - God forbid]? If the national political level won't throw up leaders, it will have to occur at a state and local level. |
| Posted by: Omoter Speaking for Boskone7794 2009-03-15 11:14 |